Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atul Chitnis (3rd nomination)

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.

ɑʀкʏɑɴ 22:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Atul Chitnis

AfDs for this article:
Atul Chitnis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This is one of the articles on subjects which I found to be inherently non-notable while on a look out for biographies of entities over India and specially in the soft-ware development sector. Most of the references quoted on the article are primary sources of information and cannot be deemed as "reliable" and "independent" (as per

FOSS. It appears that the subject of the article also has an active interest with his own article, from which it seems that Wikipedia is used as a vehicle for self-promotion. -- Zamkudi Dhokla queen! 10:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Additional note: From Wikipedia:Notability: Wikinews, not Wikipedia, is better suited to present topics receiving a short burst of present news coverage. Thus, this guideline properly considers the long-term written coverage of persons and events. In particular, a short burst of present news coverage about a topic does not necessarily constitute objective evidence of long-term notability.

In particular, we must ask ourselves the question, would this article be of any significance if someone viewed it 10 years later?

From Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collectino of information (which means that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not just an information resource). Someone or something that has been in the news for a brief period is not necessarily a suitable subject for an article in their own right. While Wikipedia strives to be comprehensive, the policies on biographies of living persons and neutral point of view should lead us to contextualize events appropriately, which may preclude a biography about someone who is not an encyclopedic subject, despite a brief appearance in the news. Routine news coverage and matters lacking encyclopedic substance, such as announcements, sports, gossip, and tabloid journalism, are not sufficient basis for an article. News outlets are reliable secondary sources when they practice competent journalistic reporting, however, and topics in the news may also be encyclopedic subjects when the sources are substantial. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for Wikinews. -- Zamkudi Dhokla queen! 10:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Important note: The article was cleaned up after the initiation of the AfD. -- Zamkudi Dhokla queen! 11:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Summary: The crux of my argument is that the subject of the article does not qualify under the conditions laid under
WP:BIO as have not been subjects of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. -- Zamkudi Dhokla queen! 11:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
  • If this article was speedy kept last time, the reason was that there was apparent trolling going on, where somebody had created a singple-purpose account for disruption; which does not relate to whether the subject is notable or not. The non-notability claim is well-founded in my opinion, since the subject is not the creator of the first online service in India. He was the creator of the first "BBS" online service. He is not the founder and director of one of the largest conferences in Asia. He is purportedly the organiser of the largest open-source conference in India, where the open source movement is still in the primary / grassroot stage. This kind of work might attract trivial publicity, but fails the criteria of inclusion on Wikipedia. Apart from that, my other arguments have been completely ignored on the notability of the subject. You state that in a way that implies "you think [that] should be included", but our inclusion guidelines do not permit it. We are not here to discuss guidelines and policies for inclusion, but to see whether the guidelines permit the inclusion of the subject as an encyclopedic entry. -- Zamkudi Dhokla queen! 08:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trolling last time doesn't change the fact that it was unanimously kept the time before that. This guy is clearly notable -- why are you pushing this so hard? - Che Nuevara 10:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't yet stated why you think the policies and guidelines say that the subject of the article should be included on Wikipedia. Stating that he clearly is notable does not make him notable. -- Zamkudi Dhokla queen! 09:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Community consensus has already determined him to be notable. Nothing significant has changed since then.
  • Consensus can change. Please re-familiarise yourself with the concept of consensus. -- Zamkudi Dhokla queen! 08:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. He is the founder of a large and significant open source conference as well as a pioneer in the Indian Internet industry.
  • OK, I concede the conference is significant, atleast in India; apart from that saying that he is a pioneer, requires appropriate citations. -- Zamkudi Dhokla queen! 08:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Poor sourcing is not a reason to delete an article. If an article cannot be sourced, it should be deleted, but if an article is not sourced, the proper response is to attempt to source it.
  1. Agree with you there, although this remains as one of the factors affecting the outcome of the AfD. -- Zamkudi Dhokla queen! 08:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. WP:BIO
    are controversial guidelines. Since Chitnis already unanimously survived an AfD based on notability, the burden of proof falls on you to demonstrate in at least some way that the prior consensus was flawed. In this light, your argument does not hold water.
  • Irrelevant. N and BIO guidelines have been stable since a long time now. -- Zamkudi Dhokla queen! 08:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. You misquote and inappropriately quote guidelines. Your quotation from WP:BIO about whether notability is 'inherited' is not relevant at all, as Chitnis is not, as far as I'm aware, related to anyone else particularly notable, nor is such a claim made in his article. Your claim that "Wikinews [...] is better suited for present topics receiving a present burst of news coverage" is also not relevant.
  • And you are tending to interpret guidelines in a normative manner. Chitnis is only notable because he is related to FOSS in India. The subject does not become notable solely on the basis of appearing on news sources to comment on the open source movement. The notability guidelines require substantial (non-trivial) coverage on him and his work. -- Zamkudi Dhokla queen! 08:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Your claim that Linux Bangalore "has not received any significant coverage" is just plain silly. (Note that that's only its old name!)
  1. The fact that you gutted the article and then tried to claim it had no sources casts doubt on this entire process.
  • To return the favour, that you are so vehemently inclined to include this article casts doubt on your involvement. The article has not been gutted, it was cleaned up, I invite you to review the history and include any important source which I might have missed out. -- Zamkudi Dhokla queen! 08:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. - Che Nuevara 17:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • God knows, I don't particularly like the man. And there's no shortage of controversy and not a few mailing list flamewars around him including a very long one I had with him some years back. But one thing he definitely is - is notable in India for the reasons User:CheNuevara mentioned besides having been around the Internet and BBS scene for several years now. Speedy keep, with possible edits to concentrate on what he is notable for (linux, bbs, the comversations column, the foss.in conference) rather than information about where he went to college and what his favorite bands are. srs 17:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A simple gnews search netted 44 hits, including over 2 dozen in mainstream indian newspapers and Wired magazine.Bakaman 23:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Google is not the basis of establishing notability, however I do accept the fact that he has appeared in multiple news stories, where he has commented on the open source movement and nothing else. He has not received any significant (non-trivial) coverage on himself or his work anywhere. -- Zamkudi Dhokla queen! 08:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Subject is notable. And if open source does indeed catch up in India, the article will surely be relevant 10 years down the line. Antariki Vandanamu 07:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The major issue here is the nominator finds the subject to be "Inherently non-notable", since the article lacks non-trivial reliable and independent sources. However, a quick search reveals that there are plenty of references available. Ignoring the trivial one-line mentions in several notable (and independent) publications, here are a few of them: Interview with
    as alleged). The article history indicates that User:Achitnis has made only five edits to the article, all of which are minor edits involving formatting, fact correction, adding a photo or tag: [1][2][3][4][5]. He seems to be more interested in Katrina Kaif. utcursch | talk 05:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Disclaimer: I have met Atul Chitnis in real life, but there is no
    conflict of interest involved here. I've met him only once -- during FOSS.IN 2006, where we talked for a few seconds and exchanged a few words about the Wikipedia article on FOSS.IN. I am not involved in any of his ventures or his FOSS-related activities. utcursch | talk 05:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • "Mentioned"? Did you read those articles that utcursch posted? They are primarily or entirely about him. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you don't read German and so you didn't read the Heise article. But this is real press coverage. - Che Nuevara 17:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete - I am an active volunteer in DebianWomen, founder of UbuntuWomen, Linuxchix and some local Libre communities and have to agree with Zamkudi that the ref's dont provide his notable contributions to Libre software communities. Libre software is indeed catching up in India and if every contributor had to have a page on Wikipedia, narcissim would never wane. ---- Svaksha 10:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Atul_Chitnis_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1137584651"